Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description goes far beyond by disclosing that it creates a new EDL version, how each written edge is placed audio-safe (~80 ms quietest point, never into the word beyond), and that the result reports every move and any joined speech. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scope and core purpose are front-loaded before the deeper edge-placement detail, and every sentence carries information. It is a single dense block, and the audio-safe placement detail is close to over-detailed, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers scope (project-scoped, immutable project_id), the side effect (new EDL version), edge-placement behavior, and what the result reports. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (start/end have no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does: it defines start/end as a 'source-time range' and gives rich semantics for snap_to_words (true snaps outward to word edges with a breath; false keeps exact times as a stutter cut), while project_id scoping is handled by the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Add a previously-cut source-time range back into the keep set (undo one cut without touching the rest).' The parenthetical makes the inverse relationship to cut_range immediately legible, so an agent can distinguish it from the cutting sibling without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'undo one cut without touching the rest' framing makes the when-to-use clear, and it gives explicit parameter-selection guidance (snap_to_words:true vs false). It stops short of naming a contrasting alternative sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.